Overview of Various Positions

The Recapitulation theory teaches that Jesus perfectly recapitulated all the stages of human life, thus restoring man’s communion with God. While an incomplete view, this theory rightly asserts Christ’s sinless passage through all dimensions of human life.

The Ransom theory proposes that Christ paid a price to satan to purchase human beings from sin. While true that Christ died as a ransom for all (Mk. 10:45), the ransom was paid to God, not satan.

The Moral Example theory says that Christ’s death provided an inspirational example of faith and obedience. While 1 Peter 2:21 affirms this truth, 1 Peter 2:24 teaches that Christ also died to bear our sins in His body.

The Necessary Satisfaction theory is the forerunner to the Penal Substitution view. Both views affirm that Christ’s death satisfied the righteous anger of God toward sinful humanity. Further, both views assert an essentialist view of God and the necessity of the shed blood of the God-Man Christ Jesus. Penal Substitution captures the heart and soul of the atoning death of Christ.

The Moral Influence theory teaches that Christ’s death was a demonstration of God’s love for us (Rom. 5:8), but is a truncated view which does not properly take into account the need to satisfy the justice of God.

The Optional Satisfaction theory says that God could have freed man from sin without the death of Christ, but the Cross was nevertheless the most fitting way to redeem humanity. This theory correctly affirms the voluntary nature of Christ’s death (Jn. 10:18), but is a denial of divine essentialism.

The Governmental theory rightly affirms that the established rules of the Sovereign God must be enforced to deter further violation, but denies that Christ died as a penalty for man’s sins.

Finally, the Mystical theory proposes that God became man that man may become God. While true that Christ’s death did reconcile man to union with God, this theory neglects the penal aspects of the atonement. 

A Brief Defense of Penal Substitution

The Substitutionary theory of the atonement is presupposed by several important doctrines. First, the essential nature of God, including his infinite and immutable justice, demands that satisfaction be made for all offenses against His holy character. He cannot simply overlook sin. Second, the total depravity of man affirms that man has universally offended God’s holy character and is under the wrath of God (Rom. 3:23). Third, the Old Testament sacrificial system foreshadows a substitutionary atonement (Gen. 3:21; Ex. 12: 1-36; Lev. 16). Fourth, the New Testament affirms as much, teaching that Christ is our substitutionary Passover Lamb (Jn. 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:7). He was pierced for our transgression, crushed for our iniquities, punished so we could have peace with God, wounded that we may be healed, and laden with our sins that we may be freed from them (Is. 53:4-6; Luke 22:37; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18). Further, the New Testament clearly affirms Christ’s death as a propitiation for our sins (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 Jn. 2:2, 4:10).

Two serious objections, however, are levied against the penal substitutionary view of the atonement. First, critics allege that it is unjust that one should be punished for the sins of another. But this overlooks that: 1) Christ was willing to suffer for the unjust; 2) Christ as God had the Divine prerogative to voluntarily pay for crimes committed against Him; 3) Christ paid for our sins but He was not charged with our crimes. His sacrifice was a voluntary substitution.  

Second, critics argue that universalism is the inevitable concomitant to the penal substitutionary theory. But this charge is unsubstantiated. Christ removed the imputed judicialguilt of all men so that all men are now reconcilable; but not all men are reconciled (Rom. 5:18-19; 2 Cor. 5:14-21). So while salvation has been objectively procured, it must still be subjectively applied. 

Pelagianism, condemned by the Council of Carthage in 418, wrongly asserts that only Adam’s bad example, and not his sin, was bequeathed to the rest of the human race. Every human since Adam is born in a state of innocence and is only condemned by his own personal sins. 

Arminianism holds to the view that man has a corrupted nature as a result of Adam’s sin, but man is not judicially guilty because of Adam’s sin. Humans are born with a propensity to sin and will die eternally if they do not cooperate with the grace of God to overcome their sinfulness. 

Strong Calvinism views man as totally depraved and unable to respond to God’s grace in any way. Man is dead and can only be made alive as a result of the irresistible grace of God effectively forcing them against or in spite of their will to become regenerate. This view implicitly embraces the contradiction of forced love as well as a denial of Divine essentialism and simplicity. 

Moderate Calvinism affirms the truth that each man is depraved and judicially guilty as a result of Adam’s sin. Yet, unlike Strong Calvinists, Moderate Calvinists affirm that while the image of God is effaced, it is not erased. Thus, man is capable and responsible to receive the free offer of salvation. God, as essentially loving, does not force salvation on the sinner, but rather persuades the sinner to exercise his free will to accept the offer of eternal life in Christ. Moderate Calvinism takes into account all the relevant biblical data, including the truth of man’s personal and imputed guilt before God (Rom. 3:23, 5:12) as well as his responsibility to respond in faith to the free gift of salvation (Acts. 16:31). Further,  Moderate Calvinism is consistent with a classical view of the existence and nature of God, making it the preferable view both logically and biblically. 

Man’s free will is either determined by another, indetermined, or determined by self. These three options are logically exhaustive. 

Determinism, in both its naturalistic and supernaturalistic forms, is self-defeating. If complete determinism is true, then all who hold to non-deterministic views are determined to do so, and can not be expected to change their views. Further, humans could not be held responsible for their actions if those actions were not the result of their own self-determined free choice. 

Indeterminism, on the other hand, makes for an irrational world by its rejection of the principle of causality. And like determinism, indeterminism illegitimately releases man from his moral responsibility, since his moral actions are ultimately uncaused. 

Self-determinism is the only option left and the correct one. First, to answer a common charge, it should be noted that self-determinism is not the same as self-causation. The latter would indeed be a logical impossibility because a being cannot be the cause of its own being. But there is no contradiction in an action being self-caused. Self-determinism alone explains the moral responsibility that man has before God. While God is the cause of the fact of free will, man is responsible for the acts of free will. This is also true of Lucifer. If Lucifer’s fall was determined by another, then God would be responsible for sin and evil. If Lucifer’s fall was indetermined, then God, a Being of perfect rationality, created an irrational world, which is absurd. The correct view is that Lucifer’s fall was the result of his own free will decision to choose the finite good (himself) over and against the Infinite Good (God). God gave to angels and humans the good of self-deterministic free will. As free moral creatures, angels and humans are responsible for what is done with that free will.